Ford called the meeting to order. The April meeting minutes were adopted.

PIIAC #98-05: Les Frank summarized. The appellant, a street preacher, was in
front of a Mormon church preaching against the religion. A citizen contacted 911
to report that he was intimidating and shouting at passers-by. When officers
arrived, they advised him against blocking the sidewalk or interfering with
passers-by. They arrested him for disorderly conduct after he continued to shout
and they could hear him a block away. The basis of the complaint was that his
constitutional right to free speech had been violated. The D.A. assigned the
complaint and Frank said that the merits of the arrest and legal issues were
more appropriately decided in court.

[Sobomehin and Ueland arrived.]

Botsko added that a component of the appeal was that IAD had not sufficiently
reviewed his treatment while in custody. In his interview tape, he had
complained about not being allowed to remove his raincoat before being
transported.

The appellant addressed the committee. He disputed that he was trespassing,
harrassing or intimidating anyone. After the officers spoke with him and his
companion, they started to leave and he began to preach to them about
constitutional rights. It was at that point they decided to arrest him. They had
no evidence upon which to base an arrest, the arrest was false. No one from the
church had complained, no passers-by complained.

In addition, officers were abusive. He added that they refused to allow him
to remove his rain gear before transport, forcing him to swelter in the heat of
the car. This was clearly retaliatory. As he was being released, one of the
officers told him not to raise his voice above conversational level, an order
that officer had no right to give.

Sobomehin asked the appellant if this had ever happened to him before. The
appellant said that it had twice: in 1990 and 1994.

Frank said that a court of law needs to decide the legal issues. Whether or
not an arrested person is actually guilty of the offense is up to the court to
decide. PIIAC’s function is to review the IAD investigation. IAD Sgt. Barker
said that the District Attorney had issued a complaint on this, but could not
have done so had there been no basis for arrest.

Frank made a motion to affirm the IAD investigation and PPB finding; Haring
seconded. The motion carried [Y-9; Abstain-Ueland].

Announcements:

Ford said that he, Bob Ueland, Lisa Botsko and Emily Simon gave a panel
presentation at the recent Neighborhoods USA conference. Quite a few attendees
were trying to establish a citizen review body in their own jurisdiction, and
the presentation was well-received.

He then introduced Dapo Sobomehin, newly appointed to the advisory committee
by Commissioner Kafoury.

Dan Handelman, Copwatch, said he wanted to be kept updated about the upcoming
PIIAC code revision efforts.

He commented on a previous meeting, in which he had been asked to shut his
camera off during a PPB tactical demonstration. He subsequently contacted the
Bureau and was told the Training Bureau had no written policy about this.
Therefore, they acted improperly and advisors did as well by threatening to go
into Executive Session.

Botsko clarified that the City Attorney indicated there was no clear legal
guidance on the subject and she advised the committee to err on the side of
openness. The issue will be further researched.

Stephen Heck said that in Citizens Academy, participants must sign a
non-disclosure agreement. He believed that the Bureau could legitimately request
citizens to keep information regarding training and tactics confidential.

Handelman mentioned a recent incident in which a citizen died while in police
custody. He had been pepper-sprayed and "hogtied." He wants PIIAC to expand its
review capacity to death-in-custody cases.

tracy addressed the committee. He said he was one of the activists that
helped renew PIIAC years ago. He stated that the ability to shout out one’s
opinions is part of our constitutional freedoms of speech. He did not know
enough about this evening’s case but had the impression that the officer was
being punitive. He regularly listens to a police scanner and believed that
citizens are routinely arrested for being "smart-asses." Law enforcement is
arbitrary; this case deserved a closer look by IAD.

Bales said that he believed advisors needed to convey more information about
cases to the audience.